Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Tue, 02 Feb 1999 16:05:40 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
> It seems more productive to pursue NEW work rather than only reworking
> from an old start; although there is merit in reinterpreting,
> reevaluating, and redoing one's ideas. The pitfall is when one becomes
> totally immersed in the past and stagnates as far as the production of
> new work. (This seems to be a common problem for those making a living
> of their work; they find a nitch (rut) and don't leave it.)
Jeffrey, this is a personal decision hinging on all sorts of factors that
I doubt one person can make for another, despite a propensity to opine on
the topic. Some artists have memorably worked one theme for their entire
life. Joseph Cornell is the first one pops into mind, but we identify many
of the greats by their themes. Picasso, on the other hand, is widely
praised for his enormous scope, yet he mined certain themes & styles for
70 years.
Harold Rosenberg used to inveigh against artists who "repeat their
successes." To my distress, try as I will, I can NEVER repeat my
successes. In fact, I have found that the best, the one surefire way of
getting a stunning, perfect, gum print, is to take no notes, and measure
nothing. The odds of it being fabulous are miraculously improved. And
probably, almost certainly, never to be repeated.
As for those who work a niche, or get in a rut -- so what? They leave just
that much more of the creativity field for the rest of us to shine in. The
*audience* doesn't notice the difference? Well, that brings us back to
Sommer v. critics, as discussed today & yesterday, doesn't it.
Re-evaluation of art and artists is never ending.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:49